An extremely popular video cover of English musician David Bowie’s song “Space Oddity” recorded by former astronaut Commander Chris Hadfield while aboard the International Space Station (ISS) last year was taken down from Hadfield’s YouTube page on Wednesday due to copyright licensing restrictions. Hadfield warned of the imminent takedown on his Twitter page on Tuesday.

The former astronaut’s well-executed cover of the classic Bowie hit, which racked up millions of views on YouTube last year, was made into a private video on Wednesday. Hadfield took this action in accordance with the terms of a licensing agreement he had entered into with Bowie’s people, which limited his permission to use the song to one year from posting.

Hadfield’s cover video, which we previously described as the most literal interpretation of “Space Oddity” we’ve ever seen, consists of footage from the ISS along with music partially created there. The former astronaut was paying homage to David Bowie's album Ziggy Stardust. When Hadfield had posted his recording on Google+ on May 12, 2013, he wrote, “With deference to the genius of David Bowie, here’s Space Oddity, recorded on Station. A last glimpse of the World.”

Hadfield performed his free-fall rendition of the song on the ISS, 250 miles above ground, and had changed a number of the lyrics to account for his particular circumstances. Nevertheless, as The Economistnoted last year, Hadfield's cover still likely falls within the scope of terrestrial copyright laws as long as it is considered to consist of the same substantive music and lyrics of the original.

In its article detailing some of the copyright complications of Hadfield's cover, The Economist described how Hadfield's five-minute video "had the potential to create a tangled web of intellectual property issues" as a result of the intersection of space, copyright, and international law.

But the article noted that because the song was published on YouTube, the production and distribution were entirely terrestrial, and since the retired astronaut had obtained permission from Bowie's representatives, his case was pretty cut and dried. As such, a new license from Bowie would allow Hadfield to continue to broadcast his song over the Web.

In response to concerns about the video's takedown, Hadfield and his son Evan, who helped create the video, posted a message to reddit on Tuesday, explaining their intentions to seek a renewal of the license with Bowie's people at a later point.

It has been a year since my son and I created and released the Space Oddity video. We have been amazed and delighted that so many people enjoyed it—and maybe saw what spaceflight can really be like. It helped show that humans have left Earth, and that the Space Station is a new stage, for not just science and exploration, but for our art and music too. With exploration comes insight—with perspective comes self-realization.

We had permission from David Bowie’s people to post the video on YouTube for a year, and that year is up. We are working on renewing the license for it, but as there are no guarantees when it comes to videos shot in space, we thought you might want to have one last look before we take it down.

Thanks for everything. You've all been incredible throughout.

Here's to hoping that the two sides can arrive at an amicable agreement.

Am I the only one who thinks "Bowie's people" would benefit more from the video staying up?

They absolutely would. Toss a link to where you can find/buy the rest of Bowie's music into the song description, and this video would be more valuable than any advertising money could buy. Copyright law should protect people like David Bowie from other guys who would profit dishonestly off his work, and that concept is laughable to apply to Chris Hadfield.

Not even remotely. He covered the whole song. It's not really a derivative work or a partial cut used as example of some sort. What surprises me is that since the performance is entirely original, Hadfield (or better one of the space agencies and its community outreach budget) would just pay the mechanical licensing fees for the lyrics outright. Those are comparatively cheap, and a government-fixed rate. Technically speaking, he wouldn't have even needed Bowie's permission to do it.

It is possible, however, that since it wasn't strictly in one country, mechanical licensing might not have adequately covered the whole world. In that case, Bowie's permission is still likely the best worldwide solution.

I'll bet money that iTunes sales of "Space Oddity" spiked a year ago and have seen other upswings since each time this video gets renewed media attention (like now). Hadfield did "Bowie's people" a favor.

Not even remotely. He covered the whole song. It's not really a derivative work or a partial cut used as example of some sort. What surprises me is that since the performance is entirely original, Hadfield (or better one of the space agencies and its community outreach budget) would just pay the mechanical licensing fees for the lyrics outright. Those are comparatively cheap, and a government-fixed rate. Technically speaking, he wouldn't have even needed Bowie's permission to do it.

It is possible, however, that since it wasn't strictly in one country, mechanical licensing might not have adequately covered the whole world. In that case, Bowie's permission is still likely the best worldwide solution.

What is the difference between this and a band covering another artist's song at a concert? Is it just because it was recorded and put up online? (which many artists do for covers anyways)

How does US copyright law apply to a Canadian covering a British artist's song?

Edit: For clarity, my question was aimed at the commenters above quoting/linking US copyright law, not at the article which is pretty clear that Hadfield had already done his due diligence on licensing in whatever way he needed to.

Not even remotely. He covered the whole song. It's not really a derivative work or a partial cut used as example of some sort. What surprises me is that since the performance is entirely original, Hadfield (or better one of the space agencies and its community outreach budget) would just pay the mechanical licensing fees for the lyrics outright. Those are comparatively cheap, and a government-fixed rate. Technically speaking, he wouldn't have even needed Bowie's permission to do it.

It is possible, however, that since it wasn't strictly in one country, mechanical licensing might not have adequately covered the whole world. In that case, Bowie's permission is still likely the best worldwide solution.

What is the difference between this and a band covering another artist's song at a concert? Is it just because it was recorded and put up online? (which many artists do for covers anyways)

It's a higher-profile issue (because of Hadfield's own individual fame) and thus can set a precedent, so they're obliged to bring the issue up. Granted, I think it should remain up and I think Bowie's folks should have negotiated an indefinite license, but the law is doing what it's designed to do.

Not even remotely. He covered the whole song. It's not really a derivative work or a partial cut used as example of some sort. What surprises me is that since the performance is entirely original, Hadfield (or better one of the space agencies and its community outreach budget) would just pay the mechanical licensing fees for the lyrics outright. Those are comparatively cheap, and a government-fixed rate. Technically speaking, he wouldn't have even needed Bowie's permission to do it.

It is possible, however, that since it wasn't strictly in one country, mechanical licensing might not have adequately covered the whole world. In that case, Bowie's permission is still likely the best worldwide solution.

What is the difference between this and a band covering another artist's song at a concert? Is it just because it was recorded and put up online? (which many artists do for covers anyways)

Most performance venues pay dues to ASCAP which allows musicians to perform covers. A cover isn't free and clear of copyright obligations. It's not as if it's criticism, satire or parody.

What is the difference between this and a band covering another artist's song at a concert? Is it just because it was recorded and put up online? (which many artists do for covers anyways)

Mechanical downloads are strictly for pre-recorded and distributed works. CDs are a traditional example, but YouTube also counts under the "interactive streaming" rules. A lot of the channels of covers you see on YouTube are either flying under the radar, or are already handling mechanical licensing through their ads. If Google imposes an ad on a cover of a song, Almost certainly it's doing it through the mechanical licensing rules, which means it doesn't have to get permission, it just sends the fees to the appropriate licensing organization.

Wouldn't this be considered a cover? What about all of the cover youtube stations that do nothing but make covers?

He'd have to be willing to pay the Mechanical License to ASCAP or BMI to be able to distribute (or perform publicly) any cover. Most of those other YouTube stations are either flying under the radar or their covers are being monetized (ads) by the copyright holders via their agreements with YouTube.

Edit: Dammit Happysin! You even used the same colloquialism as me. If I hadn't stopped to see how many other covers of Bowie songs are on YouTube....

Wouldn't this be considered a cover? What about all of the cover youtube stations that do nothing but make covers?

The "covers" thing on Youtube is a landmine field. Google have secured dealsfor some song covers in some geographic areas, but not all. I put up a couple vanity covers on Youtube and got the "Hey this song is copyrighted, but lucky for you we have an agreement" sort of message from Youtube.

Apparently if one were unlucky enough to land on three unlicensed covers Youtube will put the ban hammer on your account.

There doesn't seem to be any way to check which songs are "fair game" except perhaps to see if a given song already has a bunch of long standing covers already up..

Fair Use is a thorny issue - this usage could arguably be educational in nature, but it's also the entirety of the song. While it might be fair use in some cases, to use the *entirety* of a copyrighted work, I believe that generally it is harder to claim fair use for an entire copyrighted work.

IANACL - I am not a copyright lawyer, but, for example, I don't think I could release a book with one page of my "educational commentary" on Harry Potter, plus all whatever, 800 pages of JK Rowling's text, then sell the entire book (or even give it away) under the claim that is "fair use".

Not even remotely. He covered the whole song. It's not really a derivative work or a partial cut used as example of some sort. What surprises me is that since the performance is entirely original, Hadfield (or better one of the space agencies and its community outreach budget) would just pay the mechanical licensing fees for the lyrics outright. Those are comparatively cheap, and a government-fixed rate. Technically speaking, he wouldn't have even needed Bowie's permission to do it.

It is possible, however, that since it wasn't strictly in one country, mechanical licensing might not have adequately covered the whole world. In that case, Bowie's permission is still likely the best worldwide solution.

YES! Since we don't have the shuttle any more, NASA can go into a new business - Space Concerts! I can see it now: "NASA Orbital Entertainment presents Spaceapalooza! Camping spots available close to venure. Great views.".